New Elliott Wave Rule Forums

I have always thought that a group of believers should have a sceptic amongst them - to ask the sort of questions that must be asked in order to keep things in perspective.

Tom found that every 5th and C that he studied contained an RTB.

Hopefully everyone realises that does not guarantee that the next one will.

I am in the process of collecting "fast final 5ths". These are subwaves at some degree that lead to a Pivot BUT they have something else in common.

Even on 1 min they do not contain checkable detail, they contain no retraces, they are consecutive unidirectional moves to the Pivot; indicated by solid candles with no head/tail, sometimes with gaps.

The next stage is to go down to 10 tick, 5 tick, 2 tick and then just 1 tick if needs be, to get inside them.

I thought I'd found the perfect uncheckable 5th the other day BUT at the 2 & 1 tick level there was enough detail to count it as a simple five but IMHO there was no room to fit in the retrending 4th.

If I ever find the perfect one, I'll post it - it might be on a chart for Yak Milk but I'll still post it.

I am not questioning the idea that a 4C being seen is sometimes enough.

I am proposing it should be possible for the whole of a final 5th to be completely uncheckable. Hence the claim that EVERY final 5th at every degree contains an RTB is a step too far. It might well be in 99.999% of all cases examined so far but not every one.

There are far more of these "fast final 5ths" than I ever previously imagined. For some reason I had pictured the 5th of the 5th of the 5th..... fading away as the move ground to a halt. There have been a number recently where the chart shot up, hit a brick wall at speed and bounced back.

cheers theory

Waves of Yak milk hitting a brick wall?

(07-20-2010 04:56 AM)theoryman Wrote: [ -> ]I have always thought that a group of believers should have a sceptic amongst them - to ask the sort of questions that must be asked in order to keep things in perspective.

Tom found that every 5th and C that he studied contained an RTB.

Hopefully everyone realises that does not guarantee that the next one will.

I am in the process of collecting "fast final 5ths". These are subwaves at some degree that lead to a Pivot BUT they have something else in common.

Even on 1 min they do not contain checkable detail, they contain no retraces, they are consecutive unidirectional moves to the Pivot; indicated by solid candles with no head/tail, sometimes with gaps.

The next stage is to go down to 10 tick, 5 tick, 2 tick and then just 1 tick if needs be, to get inside them.

I thought I'd found the perfect uncheckable 5th the other day BUT at the 2 & 1 tick level there was enough detail to count it as a simple five but IMHO there was no room to fit in the retrending 4th.

If I ever find the perfect one, I'll post it - it might be on a chart for Yak Milk but I'll still post it.

I am not questioning the idea that a 4C being seen is sometimes enough.

I am proposing it should be possible for the whole of a final 5th to be completely uncheckable. Hence the claim that EVERY final 5th at every degree contains an RTB is a step too far. It might well be in 99.999% of all cases examined so far but not every one.

There are far more of these "fast final 5ths" than I ever previously imagined. For some reason I had pictured the 5th of the 5th of the 5th..... fading away as the move ground to a halt. There have been a number recently where the chart shot up, hit a brick wall at speed and bounced back.

cheers theory

Yes it is every 5th or C wave which exhibits the RTB 4th characteristic.

It's a rule.

Fast markets just do not show all detail just as detail is hidden where
markets are subjected to closed sessions. The world of percieved value
does not stop until the ride is over.

You will probably always see enough on a tick chart but then what if
the system of collection and reporting ticks is not up to par?

PS. Nothing wrong with a good heretic.

I won't go into the details of the EW Key which is at the heart of
the discovery of the NEWR and my trading system. However it is
still quite relevant to convey to all of you that the trading system
has been ported into a tick-bar platform by one of our memebers.

I'll explain this part... When I developed the STAR trading system
it was on a broker's platform which had programming capability.
The system measures the speed of a market's move prior to any
analysis application. Once the speed is matched up any breakdown
of the trend's strength is measured by taking signals on pullbacks.

The system differentiates between continuation pullbacks and new
trends (real reversals). A signal reading relies upon counting bars
prior to the pullback extreme. My broker's platform has tick timeframe
but only as single ticks. Because of a requirement to count bars at
the signal to have the new speed given by the market, my broker's
platform limitation meant that I did not use any tick timeframes in
my system.

That was not considered a limitation as the signals were reading
out at 1/2 minute just fine. However recently one of our members
that used NinjaTrader ported it into that platform and that platform
has tick-bar settings. That opened up the ability to comply with the
system's requirement to count bars at the signal.

What happened here is that the trading system's integrity became
tested down to the 1-tick bar. It retained the same exact fractal
nature that it shows at the daily, weekly or monthly scale.

Setups developed at 1-tick, 5-tick, 13-tick and completed in minutes.
Signals were read and this all retained the same accuracy.

What does this mean to you?

The numerical relationships which EW is built upon are at work at
the tick level. Please do not suppose that EW is some coincidence.

This is not something that "just happens". When a fifth wave is
finished there is not going to be another. A reversal WILL occur.
It is not possible for it to be otherwise. There is no devil's
advocate here. You may count upon it ( pun intended ). It is no
different than me saying the sun will rise and it will set, my friends!

It is locked down and assured.

It maybe a rule but rules/theories can only exist in two states i.e those that have already been disproved and those that are waiting to be.

It seems unfair but data can never be used to prove a rule is correct, just that it isn't.

The single non-conforming example required for you to remove the word "every", might not have happened yet, or already has happened - but you felt it was covered by the three exceptions you have mentioned.

If I do find a "fast finishing 5th" during market open hours, with zero countable detail at even the 1 tick level, then all you would do is invoke two of your exceptions i.e. it was a fast market and the collection/reporting was not up to par at the time.

How could you be certain that it was the collection/reporting that was flawed and not your rule?

PLEASE don't argue that your rule must always be right, so there must be some other explanation and collection/reporting problems is as good as any! PLEASE don't.... LOL

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The closed session problem is a key one IMO and something I've put many hours of study into - it is a fascinating/frustrating area. I have some views as a result e.g. it is necessary to run two counts in parallel, the market open and the one based on 24 hr data.

The labelling will be different since the Prices at which the Pivots occur will be different sometimes. Two recent examples being a lower Low formed on the S&P during Asia open, following the USA holiday and the after hours higher High formed immediately after the intraday last High.

As an exercise I used the 24hr data and removed the market open data, thus producing a "market not open count" as well. What if there were basically two groups of players, those who traded the market when it's open and those who trade it when it is closed? They might not be mutually exclusive but I had to start somewhere and assume they were.

When you look at the three charts, there are some things I found very strange indeed. For example, there are occasions when the market open data supplies the corrective pattern within the 24 hr motive one. The market opens to allow people to trade against the established trend, the market then closes and the trend continues.....

The validity of some of the data collected after hours is somewhat questionable at times. Since it is derived from alternative sources, when the market is closed, there is the question about whether it is even technically correct to blend the data at the joins.

Obvious solution, don't trade anything that closes. But everything closes at some stage, so only trade instruments that trade continuously with the minimum number of breaks.

cheers theory

Theory, theoretically, if every 5th wave contains an rtb, it can never finish, since there's always a 5th within a 5th within a 5th ... So why do 5ths end at all? I guess the limit is the smallest price unit accepted. If only full $ amounts were accepted, the waves would be less nested.

(07-21-2010 06:57 AM)ruby Wrote: [ -> ]Theory, theoretically, if every 5th wave contains an rtb, it can never finish, since there's always a 5th within a 5th within a 5th ... So why do 5ths end at all? I guess the limit is the smallest price unit accepted. If only full $ amounts were accepted, the waves would be less nested.

ruby,

If the 5th always had to exceed the end of the RTB then I can picture what you mean but I believe they are allowed to truncate, so I think that would allow them to tend towards a mathematical limit and hence end. Each subsequent 5th would have to fit into an ever decreasing space.

Suppose the very last 5th is tick gap tick and therefore uncheckable at the subwave level. Tom's exception clauses will cover this because during a gap the market is effectively closed, since by definition no trades were carried out in the gap.

Been out for a very liquid lunch - so the above is likely to be a bit iffy.

cheers theory

I would not argue about it at all.

There has not been given any reason to argue since all
that has been discussed has been theoretical.

In addition I refuse to allow anyone to argue with me unless
they can first prove that they know what I am talking about.

It is simply as it is stated in the book... as a RULE:

EVERY 5th wave and EVERY C wave MUST and DOES have a
4th wave which will set new price territory in its B wave.

If someone finds that a 5th wave is too fast or has not enough
detail it will not change the existence of this behavior.

Sufficient detail was a kingpin in the discovery and it is never
denied that there will be times when sufficient detail needed
to disclose all subwaves may be lacking.

The following probably goes without saying, but...
As to the closed sessions issue there is pent-up desire and fear
at times the session is closed due to the underlying basis and
source of it which is humans. This fear and greed is perfectly
capable of waxing and waning in EW waveforms whether it is
being tracked and plotted or not.

Please don't argue back. Please don't.

General Hennessy, if your rule is not an assumption based on empirical data, you are saying that a wave CANNOT top without going through the process of an rtb4.



And if (assuming that this was possible) someone manipulated the market and turned a 2nd wave's b into an rtb2, would that cause a premature top?

(07-21-2010 08:25 PM)ruby Wrote: [ -> ]General Hennessy, if your rule is not an assumption based on empirical data, you are saying that a wave CANNOT top without going through the process of an rtb4.



And if (assuming that this was possible) someone manipulated the market and turned a 2nd wave's b into an rtb2, would that cause a premature top?

Elliott has a list of elements required and this includes
liquid markets. It is in agreement with this that the
premise of the rules come into play.

Sufficiently liquid markets to act within the rules
combined with the need to have counterparties to every
trade make such manipulation only a speculation and
I believe that this is mostly considered as a virtual
impossibility.

Of course someone will argue that it 'could' happen.
To that I would argue that if it were to happen then the
liquidity is immediately called onto the carpet as being
inherently 'insufficient'.

That is a theoretical question. The rule is based upon
what the waves have always done. Elliott saw the
phenomenon and documented it in his book. He labeled
it as an irregular correction.

I will grant that this is only past evidence but I cannot
tell the future.

However...

If this has been going on for all this time and I make an
ass of myself ( being kind as possible ) because I 'assume'
that it will continue to occur am I taking it too far?

Additionally I observed it in all waves since the discovery
without exception - I guess that makes it empirical. I have
never observed any RTB except in C and 5th waves. I will
not ever expect to see a 2nd wave feature its B sub-wave
exceeding wave 1 price territory.

I WILL expect to see a wave depicted in precisely that manner
however. This would happen where the 5th ( of 1 ) wave's RTB
is incorrectly applied due to mis-step or ignorance of the NEWR.

Please forgive me but you do not make an Elliott Wave Rule
on scant information and if this is too dogmatic for some
then how is it we accept EW standards at all?

This is why I am dogmatic about the rule ( Elliott Wave's own
extreme consistency ) but not on someone else's requirement
to accept it. EW is too much an emminently unproveable thing
due to non-acceptance or non-agreement.

This is one place where it really only makes sense to preach
to the choir.